Fifteen Eighty Four

One of the outcomes of my examination of 2 Peter is challenging the widely held scholarly designation of this letter as a “testament.” This genre classification has been profoundly influential, particularly following the work of Richard Bauckham, which often leads to the conclusion that 2 Peter is a “transparent fiction”—a pseudonymous work whose lack of authenticity would have been known to its original audiences. I argue that scholars should abandon this testamentary classification.

A flaw in this established view is that 2 Peter, despite incorporating certain elements of a farewell speech, such as ethical exhortation and a reference to Peter’s imminent death (1:14), critically lacks several formal features found in other documents identified as testaments. Formal Jewish testaments contain certain specific features, such as a narrative framework and a deathbed scene which includes the protagonist’s death. 2 Peter contains neither. Furthermore, attempts to label 2 Peter as a “testamentary letter” also struggle, as evidence indicates that such a combination does not seem to have any ancient parallels.

In arguing that 2 Peter does not conform to the testamentary genre, I also critique the notion that the work must be read as a “transparent fiction.” The assumption that testaments were universally regarded as intentional pseudepigrapha by ancient audiences is challenged by recent scholarship, which suggests they were often cited as seemingly authentic and reliable traditions. This indicates that the literary genre itself should not be the decisive factor in determining pseudonymity.

The most appropriate classification of 2 Peter is an ancient letter that integrates components of a farewell speech. My study encourages a shift in focus, allowing scholars to consider mediating positions regarding the letter’s origins. These positions include the possible scenario that the work was composed by an authorized amanuensis during Peter’s lifetime, or by an authorized associate shortly after Peter’s death. While the nature of the evidence prevents a firm conclusion, it seems unlikely the letter was composed with no connection to the apostle’s influence and teachings.

The question of authenticity is complex, as 2 Peter has the most questioned past of any work in the New Testament. However, eliminating the genre-based necessity of pseudonymity opens the door to exploring other possible means of its production. While such questions are not resolvable based on the current evidence available, the letter’s acceptance into the canon was ultimately most likely grounded in its theological consistency with apostolic teaching. By moving past the testamentary label, we can create space for new insights into the letter’s historical message and renew the confidence that 2 Peter is a trustworthy representation of apostolic teaching.